1st Amendment - What it is, and what it isn't

Downvotes are a tool to hide posts the majority of people don't want to see. That's it. It's a democratic tool to combat trolling without resorting to bans. The person getting downvoted gets to continue expressing their thoughts, and the majority that doesn't care to see them any more doesn't have to read them. People who do want to see them just have to click that little Show Hidden Post button. It's not like there's any benefit to having a post with a ton of upvotes, or a detriment to having a post with a ton of downvoted, except it's harder to see. 

I would debate whether the downvotes make it harder to see. 
 

Honesty, when I see a hidden post, I almost always click on it to read it. Maybe I'm just too curious, or maybe I'm a masochist.  

For all the complaints about the stupid down votes, they actually add some level of intrigue (to a post that is usually quite worthless).

For that matter, you can usually see most of a downvoted post by looking at the quoted text in the post that follows it.

Yep. When I see a downvoted, hidden post, I click on it right away because I want to see who has been bad.

It's like gawking at a car accident when you drive by or watching reality TV.

You aren't really hiding the post. You are calling attention to it.

thatsnowinnebago said:

Downvotes are a tool to hide posts the majority of people don't want to see. That's it. It's a democratic tool to combat trolling without resorting to bans. The person getting downvoted gets to continue expressing their thoughts, and the majority that doesn't care to see them any more doesn't have to read them. People who do want to see them just have to click that little Show Hidden Post button. It's not like there's any benefit to having a post with a ton of upvotes, or a detriment to having a post with a ton of downvoted, except it's harder to see. 

I agree, but why hide who is voting, either up or down?

SV reX said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

I don't think requests to close or lock a thread are generally based on not agreeing with the subject.

I think they usually happen when it is clear the thread has ceased to be productive and useful.  Often by the OP of a thread.

I have requested the staff lock a thread when it threatened the safety and security of my family (I realize that is an extreme example, but any casual observer could easily have assumed the thread was closed because someone didn't like it, but didn't know the true motivation for closing was a specific request that had to do with safety)

We don't always know what is going on behind the scenes, and sometimes it's none of our business. 

I've seen the request posted 3 posts in, from someone who thinks "it might go bad". I saw that in the last 5 days. Those are the ones I mean. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

The not seeing who votes I am sure is just how the system works, and it would probalby be a good feature to see the votes.  (might create more drama though)

The "might be go bad" lock requests are not necessarily because they disagree, they might just worry about the potential S-show that is coming.... which for some reason they will likely read... even though they are not forced to open that thread.  Doesn't make a lot of sense really.  I guess if you are being a guardian of the "integrity/reputation" of the board?

In reply to aircooled :

Just trying to keep this as a place where people respect each other. You can disagree, but please don’t be rude about it. 

Steve_Jones said:

I agree, but why hide who is voting, either up or down?

Probably for the same reason we aren't required to tell anyone else how we vote in elections. Can you imagine the friction we'd see here if, instead of discovering that a post was not well-received, someone realized that RickyBobby43 regularly downvoted his comments? There'd be more animosity with no real gain. 

Besides which, imagine the visual clutter if, after every post, we had to scroll past a ticker listing every upvote and downvote. Again, no benefit beyond making it more convenient to pick sides and form cliques. 

Upvotes and downvotes represent a rough, shorthand aggregate of the response people have to a post, and that's all.

In reply to DarkMonohue :

From a Jeep board I am on, I wouldn't call it clutter. There are cliques here now, they just hide behind the benefit of being anonymous now. 

Steve_Jones said:

thatsnowinnebago said:

Downvotes are a tool to hide posts the majority of people don't want to see. That's it. It's a democratic tool to combat trolling without resorting to bans. The person getting downvoted gets to continue expressing their thoughts, and the majority that doesn't care to see them any more doesn't have to read them. People who do want to see them just have to click that little Show Hidden Post button. It's not like there's any benefit to having a post with a ton of upvotes, or a detriment to having a post with a ton of downvoted, except it's harder to see. 

I agree, but why hide who is voting, either up or down?

Being threatened because of your opinion isn't fun, that's why. 

Many of you are correct that as of right now the interpretation and implementation of the 1st amendment is that the owners of this forum can moderate it as they please.

The problem is law is always settled until it isnt, even the bill of rights. Just look at the 2nd amendment for an example. Heck we just had a supreme court decision that half the country is upset about that has to do with free speech in the context of compelled speech by a business. Social media sites didnt exist when much of this case law was "settled" and there is a movement to treat them as the public square (public utilities) and therefore they will be subject to additional scrutiny. There is also the question of if they are actually private property or public accommodations. There is also a push to make political affiliation a protected class.

Finally you have the liability question with plays into the speech question. The current interpretation is social media sites can moderate heavily and still be considered a platform and therefore be shielded from liability of whats posted, but that is being tested because if certain things are promoted or removed the lines get blurry between platform and publisher, which would open liability.

Im what would be considered in the current overton window a free speech absolutist. The internet was better when more people agreed.

With speech comes debate, with honest debate the best idea wins. I want more debate, some of my best friends are on polar opposite sides of many topics compared to me, and we debate all the time, and we enjoy the E36 M3 out of it, and it makes us all wiser. I wish more people cared about open honest debate nowadays. Instead we want opposing ideas banned or hidden. Problem is many times "misinformation" ends up being correct. Im reminded of a certain locked and stickied thread thats been hanging out until recently in this sub forum.

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

It was a ford compact car sold from 1982 until the early 90's. In ww2 it was the small carriers that accompanied (key word) the larger fleet carriers. 

I would kinda prefer to see the actual up/down vote counts displayed rather than having a highly downvoted comment require one extra click.

But I'm sure the Suddards did that for a reason. 

Opti said:

With speech comes debate, with honest debate the best idea wins. I want more debate, some of my best friends are on polar opposite sides of many topics compared to me, and we debate all the time, and we enjoy the E36 M3 out of it, and it makes us all wiser. I wish more people cared about open honest debate nowadays. Instead we want opposing ideas banned or hidden. Problem is many times "misinformation" ends up being correct. Im reminded of a certain locked and stickied thread thats been hanging out until recently in this sub forum.

Ah! But what you have in common with your polar-opposite friends is this: you all love political debate.

What lovers of debate sometimes seem not to realize is that not everyone enjoys an argument the way you do.

I don't want differing opinions or opposing views hidden. What I want, at least from this forum, is not to get roped into a debate by someone who views argument as sport. There are a few people on any given forum who fit that description. One of the functions a downvote performs is to tell someone that their behavior is unwelcome.  Leaving it anonymous allows the group to do so without inciting a personal argument with someone who is often looking for exactly that.

1988RedT2 said:

Honestly, if I hear another person parrot the phrase "separation of church and state!" I will gently pray for them.

Stop trying to pass laws based on religious "morality", and I will be delighted to stop harping on the separation of church and state.

Just as an aside, I think that it's very useful to remind ourselves periodically that our opinions don't really add up to a hill of beans in the big picture. Life is short and we all should have better pastimes than to rant and rave. Maybe even throw in a little humor once in a while and know that we are all clowns on a certain level.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Are you just trolling?

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Are you intending to demonstate what well reasoned debate looks like?

Edit: it's been said several times, by a number of us. You're not getting downvoted because of you have a different opinion, but because of how you present it. Fact is, I suspect I'd enjoy having a beer with you if I was in the area, and that we in fact probably share similar views on a variety of items.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

You expressed earlier your dislike of  "the piling on of frenchy and questioning his mental state".

Are you saying that people who genuinely don't like what he was saying should not have the right to say so?  Do you think they should have their free speech limited?

Do you think people who question the mental state of an individual should not have the right to say so?

That sounds hypocritical. 
 

But there is a worse potential problem... What if it's true?  What if there were a legitimate health problem with identifiable symptoms that no one was willing to say anything about?

I'm not talking about Frenchy, or anyone here. I'll just talk about me. I have lived with people with dementia, and I am very familiar with it. It's awful. If I ever begin showing any signs of it, or if anyone around me ever has any concerns, I really want them to speak up and express those concerns. It can't be fixed, but it can be managed, and I would absolutely want to know if I ever exhibited any warning signs. 
 

I wouldn't like it at all if someone ever told me that. I'd still want them to be brave enough to do so. 

Steve_Jones said:

I agree, but why hide who is voting, either up or down?

For the same reason we all had to put our heads down on our desks when voting for whatever elementary school class decision needed to be made.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Specifically about the EV thread...

There are over 2000 posts in that thread. It's possible that half of them are made by a single poster. If we checked the actual word count, I'm pretty certain that that single member wrote more than half the words in that thread. 
 

That's post-whoring, and a very large percentage of those posts are factually incorrect. More than half. 
 

This is a car forum, and some of us would like good quality accurate info about cars, and particularly EVs.  
 

I have ZERO problem with bad information which is factually incorrect being debated, disapproved of, voted down, edited, or eliminated. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to z31maniac :

So are you accusing my speech of other crimes?  All your quotes so far support free speech being absolute unless that speech violates laws like inciting a riot?  Did I invite a riot leading to censorship on this site?  Or did I just disagree with you, again?

Yes the Bill of Rights limits the government but it applies to everyone in the land.  One thing you and everyone else fails miserably at is no one who created that document could even imagine a world where others try and trample others rights imposing silly ideas like companies can do anything they want.  We literally live in a world so upside down people destroy their own and each other's rights so the govt doesn't have to do it!  There is an abundance of evidence to show the govt used social media to do this.  As a matter of fact the DOJ is fighting the 5th circuit to continue the practice.  Apparently most of you are fine with that since you personally condone it here.

No, the Bill of Rights is a limitation of government power over the people, that's it.  People, in their free enterprise, can impose whatever limits they want within their enterprise.  Don't like an opinion on a forum?  Ban them.  Don't like the person's shirt at your bar?  Kick them out.  Now, there are limits on when you can refuse to do business based on certain qualities, but that was imposed by the government.  I don't like the way it is used, but the BOR has nothing to do with individuals (or businesses) interacting with each other.

From some of your posts in other threads, I believe there are many things that you and I see eye to eye on, but on this, we do not.